Paralysed from the waist down after a car crash, Julie Hill struggles to get used to her disability and to save her marriage. It looks as if her husband will leave her. Then doctors try a ... See full summary »
In movies or literature, let's face it, hard task is denouncing, say, the death penalty by using an innocent man or woman as a protagonist. Accordingly, it couldn't be easy to indict malehood for the behaviour of one man. This picture's title is quite ironic, and Paul, the defendant in a case of alleged rape, actually calls himself 'Everyman' - explicitly. I reckon that Allison, the plaintiff, Beth, the defendant's wife and Allison's best friend, as well as filmmaker Sarah Harding, do so - implicitly. But is sex indeed so abject an instinct? this film approaches a difficult subject, involving rape, the disinterested friendship between two women, the feminine freedom to flirt around and the masculine obligation to contain any socially-incorrect erotic compulsion. I don't think David and Allison would take ten years to have sex for the first and last time in their lives. I don't think Beth's unconscious mind would take 10 years to an insight that her conscious mind obviously perceive long time ago. And what about the friendship between A and B? I definitely don't think that all that is solid does melt into air so suddenly. the film isn't bad in its court-controversy sub-genre, but definitely lacks dramatic or philosophical substance.
7 of 27 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this